Agenda and minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone present and went through some general housekeeping arrangements for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B S Beale MBE, R G Boyce MBE, M W Helm and N J Skeens.

The Chairman referred to Councillor Beale and on behalf of the Committee wished him a speedy recovery.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 August 2022, (copy enclosed).

The Chairman advised that there had been problems with the sound recording at the last meeting causing some distortion.  He clarified that no criticism had been made by the Committee of Committee Services when discussing urgent items of business at that meeting.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 August 2022 be approved and confirmed.

To disclose the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registrable interests and Non-Registrable Interests relating to items of business on the agenda having regard to paragraph 9 and Appendix B of the Code of Conduct for Members.

(Members are reminded that they are also required to disclose any such interests as soon as they become aware should the need arise throughout the meeting).

Councillor R P F Dewick declared a pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5 -22/00628/FUL Land North of Covered Reservoir, Tinkers Hole Road, Burnham-on-Crouch, advising they were one of his customers.

Councillor A L Hull declared a pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 5 -22/00628/FUL Land North of Covered Reservoir, Tinkers Hole Road, Burnham-on-Crouch.

Both Councillors Dewick and Hull left the chamber prior to the next item of business.

IN THE CHAIR : COUNCILLOR A S FLUKER

The Chairman asked anyone speaking to ensure that they did so clearly as there were some sound issues with the live stream.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

It was noted from the Members’ Update that comments had been received from the Council’s Ecological Consultant.  The Update detailed a number of additional conditions which were recommended should Members be mindful to approve the application.  An additional letter of representation had also been received and this was detailed on the Update.

Following the Officers’ presentation an objector, Jo Coombs, addressed the Committee.

The Chairman moved the Officers’ recommendation of approval, but this was not supported.

During the lengthy debate that followed Members expressed concern regarding a number of areas and in response to these and questions raised Officers provided further clarification which included:

·                 This application related to a temporary building (showroom) for a maximum of 12 months or less, depending on when the permanent showroom was constructed on the development site.

·                 The proposal was not tied into the delivery of affordable housing.

·                 In respect of concerns regarding the application being in an agricultural setting, it was highlighted that the site location had been approved under a discharge of condition as a construction compound for phase 1 of the related development.  Further details of the use of this compound were provided by Officers.

·                 This application had been brought forward following a delay by Essex County Council in the signing of the Section 278 agreement regarding Highways and construction of the main road into the site.  This temporary permission was sought to allow the applicant to start marketing as soon as possible.

Members were advised that two emails had been received by the Developers on the day of this meeting regarding the signing of the Section 278 agreement and the content of these letters were read out.  It was noted that the Developers had advised that the Section 278 agreement had now been signed, with the site entrance booked for November and the permanent show home being on site December / January.

Councillor Stamp proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, for reasons relating to the development being outside of the development boundary; intrusive in the countryside; planting; the site being visible; and the proposed design as the site was in an agricultural area.  In response the Chairman clarified that the proposal related to Policies S1, S8, H4 and D1.  This proposal was duly seconded and upon a vote being taken was agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 302.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officers’ presentation a supporter, Mr Blunden, addressed the Committee.

Councillor V J Bell declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application as she was a member of the croquet club and following discussion with the Chairman confirmed she would speak but not vote on this item of business.

A number of Members highlighted the benefits of the Rugby Club and spoke in favour of the application, referring to how it would enhance the District and area. 

At this point, it was noted that all Members had been given dispensation to determination applications on Council owned land.

Councillor A S Fluker referred to the Council’s Vehicle Parking Standards (VPS) and how he felt it gave flexibility for parking to be nearby when relating to sports and recreational uses.  He understood that sports and institutions could not have windows directly into changing rooms because of safeguarding and although this was not a planning issue should be noted.  Councillor Fluker then proposed that the application be approved, contrary to the Officers recommendation, for reasons that the development was exceptional, wording from the VPS could be applied and the design fitted in with the location.  This proposal was duly seconded.

In response Officers provided further clarification and reminded Members of the need to be consistent in the application of policies across all applications.  Councillor Fluker responded advising he did not feel this application would set a precedent because the site was unique.

The Chairman put the proposal of approval in the name of Councillor Fluker to the Committee.  Upon a vote being taken this was duly agreed.

Councillor Fluker clarified that the principal reasons for approval were that the application was not contrary to Policies D1 and H4 and having considered parking on this particular instance it was acceptable.

It was agreed that Officers would agree the relevant conditions to be applied to the approval in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee.

RESOLVED that this application be APPROVED subject to conditions to be agreed by Officers in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee.

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

Following the Officers’ presentation the Agent, Mr Alex Robinson and Councillor Grimes representing Tillingham Village Council addressed the Committee.

Councillor A S Fluker provided the Committee with some further detail regarding the site and felt that the proposal would improve the conservation area, noting there had been no objections to the application.  He considered that in this instance the proposal accorded with policy H4, noting that the Conservation Officer had no objections, and policies D1 and D3 also noting that the Village Council supported the development, there were no objections, and most people would be delighted with the proposed improvements to the site.   Councillor Fluker then proposed that the application be approved, contrary to Officers recommendations for the reasons detailed above.  This proposal was duly seconded.

In response to the proposal Members were advised that a number of other factors in addition to the conservation area had been taken into consideration by Officers when making their report and recommendation to the Committee.

The Chairman put the proposal of approval in the name of Councillor Fluker to the Committee.  Councillor Fluker reiterated how he felt the proposal did accord with Policies D1, D3 and H4.  In respect of conditions, should Members be mindful to approve the application, it was suggested that standard conditions along with materials and those suggested by the Conservation Officer be included applied.  This was duly noted.

Upon a vote being taken the Chairman declared that the application was approved.

RESOLVED that this application be APPROVED subject to conditions to be agreed by Officers in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee.